McFarland v. New Zealand Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1959 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Clell C. McFARLAND and Jean L. McFarland, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Limited, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 6253. |
Fraser, Hewett & Rickles, Santa Ana, for appellants.
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for respondents.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs to collect a judgment theretofore rendered against one Robert E. Lewis from the defendant insurance company. This appeal is taken from a judgment rendered in favor of defendant company.
The facts involved are that in November, 1955 the defendant insurance company issued its policy of automobile liability insurance covering an automobile owned by Robert E. Lewis. The policy limits were $5,000 for injury to any one person, $10,000 for injuries to more than one person, and $5,000 property damage. It appears that Lewis was in the military service and that an order had been issued that personnel could not operate automobiles upon the military base unless their operation was covered by indemnity insurance. Defendant company, for a nominal premium, issued the policy in question, which contained the follow restrictive endorsement:
'1. The insurance applies only to accidents which occur while the automobile is within boundaries of any military post, camp, cantonment or reservation.
The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. It was stipulated that the plaintiffs received injuries as a result of the operation of the insured automobile upon a public highway in California and not within any military camp or reservation. An action was brought against Lewis for damages and upon his default a judgment was rendered in the exact amount of the face of the policy. The defendant insurance company denied liability and this action followed.
Section 415 of the Vehicle Code is a part of the Financial Responsibility Law of California which provides in substance that under certain circumstances the owner of an automobile must procure insurance and post the same. Section 415 provides that such policy shall meet certain requirements. One of the provisions is that:
'Such policy shall insure every said person on account of the maintenance, use or operation of every motor vehicle therein covered within the continental limits of the United States against loss from the liability imposed by law arising from such maintenance, use or operation to the extent and aggregate amount * * *.'
The laws of California do not require that the operator of an automobile carry such insurance unless he comes within the provision of the Financial Responsibility Law as the result of liability for damage by reason of the operation of his automobile.
It is well established that an insurance contract may be limited with respect to the coverage or liability by an endorsement. Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co., 46 Cal.2d 423, 296 P.2d 801, 57 A.L.R.2d 914. The language of such endorsement prevails over general language contained in the body of the policy if the language of the endorsement is free from ambiguity. Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 18 Cal.2d 731, 117 P.2d 661.
It is apparent that the language of the endorsement heretofore quoted is free from ambiguity. By that endorsement, the policy by its express terms is applicable only to liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...334 P.2d 658). The insurer may limit the territorial extent of the coverage in its inception (Mc-Farland v. New Zealand Ins. Co. (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 422, 424-425, 1 Cal.Rptr. 482) even though it may not by a partial exclusion territorially restrict an attribute of the general coverage whi......
-
Abbott v. Interinsurance Exchange of Auto. Club of Southern California
...Cal.App.2d 631, 325 P.2d 228; Bonfils v. Pacific Auto. Ins. Co., supra, 165 Cal.App.2d 152, 331 P.2d 766; McFarland v. New Zealand Ins. Co., supra, 176 Cal.App.2d 422, 1 Cal.Rptr. 482; Royal Exchange Assur. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., supra, 188 Cal.App.2d 662, 10 Cal.Rptr. 686; Glo......
-
Bohrn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...21 Cal.Rptr. 844; Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Const. Co., 46 Cal.2d 423, 296 P.2d 801, 57 A.L.R.2d 914; McFarland v. New Zealand Ins. Co., 176 Cal.App.2d 422, 1 Cal.Rptr. 482), but nevertheless is subject to qualification. As pointed out in the case of Bonfils v. Pacific Auto. Ins. Co.,......
-
Jane D. v. Ordinary Mutual
...in the body of the policy if the language of the endorsement is free from ambiguity. [Citation.]" (McFarland v. New Zealand Ins. Co. (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 422, 424, 1 Cal.Rptr. 482.) In construing insurance contracts it is also settled that " 'a specific provision relating to a particular s......